This fourth (long and rather detailed) essay in the series is both a conclusion to Part Three’s examination of the causalities of human being and an introduction of the role of attention.  Whilst this is not an essay on epistemology, it runs an epistemological course from, in biblical terms, Eden to the Fall to salvation, which correlates with the ontological one from the Primary to the Secondary Structure of causality.  It needs to be understood that there are two distinct processes here, one of those at the very foundation of the brain, and the other in a declined quality of cognition.  The latter explains all the sorrows of life which are of Man’s wilful error.  It is eminently ameliorable, as the next essay, exploring the accidental effects of NSDAP on German peoplehood, will endeavour to demonstrate.

BETWEEN DASEIN AND DARWIN

The twice lost garden, a place not only of confusion, but of lethargy and passivity.

In an age of official hostility, coercion, hypocrisy and lies, and the fear and dread which these inculcate in the innocent, the truth is at a very great premium, for it is the sole means of deliverance.  Let us begin this perfectly non-religious essay, then, with some political as well as ontological truth from St Paul, KJV, 1 Corinthians 13:12 ...

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

We will now think with - and past – Paul, and do so ontologically but always with one eye on the political.  For this is, in part, an essay about power and powerlessness, and although it begins in matters far from worldly concerns, ultimately the ontology must show us where power truly abides.

Each one of us stands raw and constantly renewing within this immediate world in all its own raw and constantly renewing wholeness, which encompasses us as it encompasses all things organic and inorganic, and from which neither we nor anything else can except itself.  “For now” in this hyper-material, primordial reality, this singular congruence no wider than a razor’s edge, we do not stand with any cognition of ourselves as beings separated out by self-hood and by the fateful time-lapse of our own thinking, or even that of our feeling or sensing in any form.  We are naïve as we are raw, and both of these only while cognition trails but a few milliseconds adrift.  Once we join with it everything changes.

This, then, is the biblical Garden of Eden, and although the holy scribes and seers of the ancient world understood that, by the serpentine order of things, processing information about it expels us from it (ie, it cannot be experienced indirectly as information in the mind), they only had poetry and myth to represent the fact.  They did not have the benefit of modern science or evolutionary theory or even Western epistemology to know why or to explicate the totality of the caesura.  They could not know that Mind emerges first from the enzyme catalysis, light- and heat-seeking, and quorum sensing of simple cells which they never saw and never suspected to exist.  They could not know, therefore, that such a defining and constitutive origin renders our cognitive process today, with all its dissonant temporality, as imminent and inextinguishable as any tribal god they might cook up.  They could not know that Mind and divine truth, should such a thing exist, rightfully have contrary dynamics.  If there are truths in the paradisal garden which are divine, they are forever beyond Mind’s necessary, disjunctive filter.

Put another way, even the most intense and elevated liberational event by which mystics self-verify Union with the All ... even that remains informational for us.  Yes, the thinking mind’s relentless, drenching chatter can be stilled, at least for a brief while.  If the subject is a serious individual, fifteen years or so tanning himself on a Californian beach while, of course, bent in the regulation lotus posture, and following every breath into and out of the body (in other words, actual prayer, not the church pew thing), then a certain equilibrium might restore itself for a time and a certain detachment might yield real profundity.  But the totality that is the cognitive Mind remains operative and absolute, and in the final analysis such efforts represent no more than a reaching towards the unreachable.  So it is that one of the two great causes of every religion - Union with the All – remains a literal impossibility in this life at least (and we need not let eternal salvation in the next detain us).  What, then, is actually taking place?  How are we to bring this entire dispensation into the ontological daylight, and order it?

As ever, there is some clearing away, some housekeeping to be done.

READ MORE...

In July and August of 2021, James Bowery and I became embroiled in a productive debate about, as James eventually titled it, the causal structure of Dasein.  I am returning to that subject now, because I find I cannot proceed with my Part Two NSDAP essay without doing so.  My thanks to James for his participation and commentary on that thread, which was to his film review here .

With apologies to abstract artists everywhere.  I can’t title this “The Burnt Orange Heresy, which is taken.  But maybe
“The Burnt Orange Reflex” will do.

THE CAUSALITIES OF HUMAN BEING

Let us begin this essay by reminding ourselves why such abstract and theoretical subject matter, which attends to a primordial aspect of human existence of surpassing irrelevance to those contesting the politics of the day, is nevertheless necessary and meaningful for us as nationalists.

How we came to the point of needing new thinking

For the reason, in brief, that since the Greeks, Western thinking has been overly concentrated on the technical question of how can we know truth and not the existential who are we …

For the reason that Christianity’s idiosyncratic model of the sinner seeking a personal salvation post-mortem by the grace of God does not, in fact, tend to Man’s relational truth but moves him in a manner wholly consistent with the Judaic End-Time ...

For the like reason, following on from Christianity’s universalist dictum that all men are equally made in the image of God, an entire eco-system of narratives of injustice and oppression has been politicked into being, every type of it, every detail, targeting the white sexually-normal male as a bearer of an original sin of some kind, most usually racism ...

For the reason that liberalism’s unfettering will - the guiding idea of our epoch and the secular child of Christianity - is a non-real and non-possible desideratum, the pursuit of which can only consume our lives and distance us from our innate truth ...

For the reason in consequence that Western metaphysics has not been able to centre itself on the human principle but has surrendered it to science and technology, reducing the lived life to mere utility filled with economism, materialism, and consumption-as-progress ...

For the reason that investment, banking, corporate, media and tech elites, and the internationalist institutions, hold sway over the liberal democratic system, and thus over the parties and governments of the West also, imposing their agendas on national politics and reducing it everywhere to a ritual of deception and betrayal …

For the reason that since the middle of the 19th century the Jewish ethno-religious paradigm has accommodated itself, via the leading Jewish intellectuals and activists, in the development of Western philosophical, political and cultural life, colouring political decision to the profound exclusion of our own interests and freedom …

For the reason that we have no recourse to an active politics of those interests and of the truth of our person, indeed a war of false morality is waged against these even while our ancestral homelands are deliberately and wickedly flooded with foreign populations (which are no less wickedly presented to us as “oppressed peoples” and “ethnic minorities”) ...

… for such reasons, great and small, we are not only subject to the soft-genocidal power play of global elites but to an acquired inner condition of estrangement and confusion.  The modern life so ceaselessly and seamlessly manufactures artifice, the stranger within us reacts to the mortal danger to our kind not with love and commitment to putting things straight but with perfect insouciance.  “What does it matter to me?” the stranger may ask.  Because, of course, in artifice and its detachments lies self-referentialism and nihilism.  So we all sleep on while, to borrow from Enoch Powell, our elites and others hostie to us heap up the European demographic funeral pyre, and drag the European man and woman and the European family through their neo-Marxist sewer.

In such a compromised condition, from whence is the capacity to defend our life and being to come?  If it comes only from the anti-globalist and traditionalist right as represented by the phenomenon that is Giorgia Meloni, and by the rise of Jimmie Åkesson and the Sweden Democrats, and AfD in Germany, by the revitalisation of Marine Le Pen, perhaps even in the person of Donald Trump, then we will see gestures in the direction of recovery, for sure.  But none of these will ever sweep away modernity and the mass man, or the Money Power, never mind the more subtly enworlding powers of the West’s deep religious and ethical, philosophical, social, economic and cultural forms … its very models of Life and Man and their complete possession by the Jewish spirit.  Likewise, none of our own discursive efforts to this point … on race and immigration, on the JQ, on cultural Marxism, on Islam, and latterly on globalism and the Money Power … will ever measure up to this world-making task.  Reaction might reform to one or another degree.  But it does not replace the system which is formative to us, which abides within us, and which we effortlessly communicate to our children.  Yet any measure less than replacement of that formative system and the cut will be too shallow.  The default characteristic of the system will prevail, and its DNA will carry over to confound, limit, frustrate, outlast, and swallow all the forces of reaction.  All that was before reaction will be after it.

Preparatory notes for a critical Heideggerian

So we return to this question of the abstract, the theoretical, because that is the language in which the formative is re-conceptualised and brought anew to the world.  Only thus could a new and complete philosophy for life and truth, emerging from the human fundamentals, be brought forth.  Only thus could nationalists properly defy our historical trajectory, change it and become the driving force of a revolution for existence.

READ MORE...

The following exchanges occurred today at The Conservative Woman.  TCW is a Christian conservative site which is quite restrictive on what it allows to be said about Christianity.  One is free to say all manner of things that would earn an instant dismissal on any pee-cee/woke liberal-left medium.  But critique Christianity at TCW and it’s curtains.  Which raises the interesting possibility that, actually, it is faith which does not brook falsification.  Anyway, I seem to be getting better, or maybe less clear, at speaking to Christians since this time I haven’t been banned.  Though, as the final remark shows, obscuration brings its own problems!

The exchanges were on this thread, which happily combines the Church of England, education and anti-racism.

Roger Bennett

I think it would go a long way to solving many of our problems today if true Christians could regain control of the C o E, it feels the time is fast approaching when that must happen or a new religious group will be founded. Perhaps when they ban the bible will be the necessary catalyst.

Guessedworker : Roger Bennett

Christianity has its ideational roots in Second Temple Judaism. The radical universalism that plagues us on our own ancestral soil today originates there.

Roger Bennett : Guessedworker

The branch can grow a long way away from the roots and its seeds may grow a new tree always influenced by the original roots as different as necessary to suit the new times for its healthy survival.

Guessedworker : Roger Bennett

But not in this case. Matthew 5: 17 & 18:

17 Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.
18 For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Christians have a duty to follow Christ’s teaching in regard to the prophets of Israel as in all things, and Israel in this respect holds out only sameness for the Other. However, the truth of peoples is not that sameness but the worth and uniqueness that is the gift of aeons of human descent, and which marks all peoples, Jew and gentile alike. The produced gentile, be he saved from sin by G-d or not, and the natural man under the singular obligation to protect and preserve his kind will always struggle to coexist in one Christian body.

No doubt, it is a dichotomy which demands a terrible judgement upon one or the other. Today’s Church is making that judgement upon our ethnic kind. I would prefer to judge the Church instead.

Roger Bennett : Guessedworker

It all depends on what your personal interpretation of what God is which decides on how you view the bible, whether it is a collection of the best ideas for the time of its creation to be taken as a guide to inform and consider or whether it’s an inviolable work of some omnipotent being.

Guessedworker : Roger Bennett

I agree in part. Obviously, the faith system which is best fitted to a people is the one which emerges over time from its own sociobiology.

At that point a critical (I think, female) voice entered the exchange.

Moonsphere : Guessedworker

And yet we find that Jesus performed acts of healing on the Sabbath, which was considered a breach of the Law. So you can’t hang the entire weight of the OT on passages which don’t have the tensile strength to support your argument.

We find that the Old Testament has within it Laws of Reciprocity - “an eye for an eye”, etc. These are Silver Rule formulations (so-called as they mirror the relation between Moon and Sun).

Does a Golden Rule abrogate a Silver Rule? Or does it bring it to a higher level of perfection?

Guessedworker : Moonsphere

What is more important to a tribe made hyper-ethnocentric by repeated existential crises ... the formal command to rest on the seventh day or the preservation of a brother’s life? Is a man to refuse to help his brother because of the formal law? What did the early oral and written Law say? Given the nature of Halacha as it has emerged in Rabbinic Judaism, this question must have been considered and resolved. I put it to you that the resolution would have been for tribe over scripture.

At this point in the Roman occupation the tribe’s religious life was in total ferment. There were hostile and competing sects seeking to inherit the religious future from Second Temple Judaism (which was dying, and was finally sundered by the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD). However, all of them carried the ideational imprimatur of Second Temple Judaism. Peter’s Jewish aspect of the Christ Cult is lost to us now. But it had been harsh enough on the question of breaking bread with the gentile for the Incident at Antioch to cause a schism. So one might speculate that tribalism was, as now, the central value, and that value was expressed in early Christianity, including Pauline Christianity, as the recruitment of the gentile in working for, and making himself subject to, the tribal cause. This is the essence of the Christian soul seeking not the good of his tribe but salvation from a great weight of sin by the grace of the Judaic G-d. This is how liberalism’s universalist dicta come down to us.

I am not a Christian. I am an Englishman. I have no faith potential. I have a portion of intellect. I can plainly see that universalism is a curse on my people. I cannot see how Christianity can be reformed to exclude it, but perhaps that is the path English Christians must explore at this time of the designed death of our people.

Redthommo41 : Guessedworker

Your last paragraph - Bravo

I can identify with much of your last paragraph in that I am a Christian (Catholic) and a very proud White Englishman. Sadly, on intellect, you have the beating of me. Although I have an MBA and can manage the kant with the cleaner the same as I can with Senior Board and the titled.

We, the White English are a hardy breed and IMPO White English and Christianity are intertwined into our fabric.

I would read more of you but I must admit (with the greatest respect) I cannot understand 75% of your posts. Word salad.

Guessedworker : redthommo41

Thanks for the response, Tom. I keep getting told off for obscurantism (basically). When thinking Christians - a demographic not unknown for its past interest in angels and pinheads - tell me likewise perhaps I should try to be more concise.

It remains difficult to impossible to debate the objects of faith.  What is one to do?  Well, we know that debating with the believing radical left is fruitless.  But the believing right has commonalities which ought to count for something.  These do occasionally bear on the faith question.  Perhaps I’ll continue to get better at talking to these folk and even explaining to them where a non-trivial part of their plaints actually originate.

There is “The True Meaning of Christmas”.

Then there is “The True Meaning of The Fourth of July.”

And, no, it isn’t that mendacious mockery They make of it by playing, during fireworks, “They’re Coming To America”.

And, no, it isn’t that mendacious mockery They make of it by terminating the bloodlines of the best of our young men in foreign wars.

And, no, it isn’t that mendacious mockery They make of it by subverting our religious impulses with media and academia “narratives”.

Don’t you ever forget.

Signed,

Bowery of Orange, Sept of Clan McGregor

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

As I have written a few corrective words for the “normie” struggling to process Italian fascism from the standpoint of his or her received liberal wisdom, I thought I might extend the dread offence to writing if not about the German equivalent, exactly, at least about a photograph of perfectly normal Germans of the pre-war period, which I saw long ago.  Or I would begin this essay by writing about it.  Or my memory of it, to be more precise, because I did not copy it to file and have never found it on the net since.

Where and when I came across it that one time I have no memory.  It may have been a good couple of decades ago, and may have been via a google search.  Perhaps an eponymous unhappy German-American had posted it on some verboten WN site to demonstrate the undoubted enthusiasm of ordinary Germans for their Führer.  Hundreds of such images were accessible, probably many more then than now.  Those were the days when Google was just a search engine and not a surreptitious guardian and shaper of our thoughts. 

This one was a quite tightly cropped black-and-white image of a section of the crowd, showing perhaps twenty-five to thirty people.  From memory, they were waiting at the roadside, (I think) behind some metal crowd-control barriers.  One presumes, of course, that the wait was for Adolf Hitler’s motorcade to pass by.  That was hardly an unusual photographic subject for the time.  National Socialist ideology was in its pomp; and pomp and pride, power and purpose were precisely what the uniforms, the rallies, the architecture, the idealised presentation of the German folk and of Hitler himself was designed to generate.  The thing is, though, that this photo differed from the general run in so much as there was no Führer in it, or any high NSDAP functionary in his expensively tailored, pseudo-military garb.  There was not a single sun-wheel, not one Roman salute, not one phalanx of blond Hitlerjugend marching en route to Speer’s Zeppelinfeld.  There was just this section of crowd – ordinary men and women, and their children watched over benignly from the other side of the barriers by a couple of soldiers in coal-scuttle helmets.

The soldiers seemed to have no fear of a lurking loner with a luger.  The mood simply precluded that possibility.  Neither was this a crowd in some manufactured hysteria, primed at the sight of the object of its devotion to lose its head and flood forward, blocking the way.  It needed no policing.  This was a crowd with a clear and abiding sense of its own disposition at that moment and in that place.  A positive, pellucid life-energy leapt out of the bromide.  It was in everyone, soldier and civilian alike.  It was in the lad who had clambered up a lamp post, holding on precariously with one hand and waving the other (I think, holding a cap) in celebration.  Every single face was animated and smiling.  Yet the focus of that boisterous microcosm of humanity somehow seemed not to leave its own bounds, as if an invisible centrifugal force was gifting singularity and concert to that which, at any other time, would diffuse and dissipate away.  One could quite believe that it was coming not from an anticipated sighting of the national leader but from the simple, shared gladness in being German in those days.

READ MORE...

If anyone has any current news of the welfare and activities of DanielS ... if anyone has come across him online or has news of him in the real world ... would he or she kindly leave a comment below.

Bakhmut under fire [Daily Aviation]

As anyone who isn’t a Stone Age, bone-in-the-nose, bow-and-arrow tribesman in some patch of the Andamans must now know, last Friday was the anniversary of Vladimir Putin’s misconceived 3-day conquest of Ukraine.  By a year ago on Saturday the Spetznaz squads roaming Kiev were meant to have decapitated the government.  By a year ago yesterday the designated Putin puppet was meant to have made the short flight from Minsk to Hostomel for the drive through cheering crowds to the city centre for his victory broadcast from the president’s office.  Putin’s masterly use of surprise would be taught at military colleges for generations.

Where we are, instead, has been summed up by countless opinion pieces across what, in military speak, is now called “the information space”.  One pithy and accurate piece was published on Friday’s anniversary at Geopolitical Monitor by occasional contributor Nicholas Velasquez.

He summed up the current disposition at the front in a single sentence:

The stockpile phase of the Russo-Ukraine war has ended and it is clear that the conflict is now attrition based.

The stockpile, it should be noted, was always expected to be the likely deliverer of Russian victory.  Western military specialists spoke from the beginning about the several million shells and deep stores of missiles of all kinds available to the invader.  After Kiev, when the Russian command’s focus was scaled back to the east, Russian shell consumption was estimated during the successful artillery battles for Lysychansk and Sievierodonetsk at 20,000 shells a day.  But, ultimately, the stockpile was not deep enough.  The old Soviet artillery strategy of soaking the ground, allied to the widespread employment of missiles on civilian targets, has resulted in shell starvation and reliance on ageing and non-optimal missiles plus the forty or so that Russian manufacturers can actually produce each month.  The result is the switch to attrition (which is, of course, also a traditional Russian military strategy).

Accordingly, the world waited for the grand offensive to begin, and Russian numbers to overwhelm the defenders.  It now transpires that it did, in fact, begin about a fortnight ago, which one can see in the jump in Russian dead reported by the defenders.  Of course the losses render the generation of the required mass much slower than intended.  Yes, there is a build up, and pressure is increasing on the defenders entrenched in and around Bakhmut.  But so far meaningful advances remain elusive, in part surely because the dead tend to be experienced soldiers while their replacements are green mobiks who are not particularly sure why they are fighting.  Western media are reporting that Putin “is considering” mobilising another 500,000 men.  But his army doesn’t have the capacity to train that number for an offensive operation in much under a year.  It also doesn’t have the hardware to support them.  All it can do is to continue the same asymmetrical attritional process and hope that an exhausted West is driven to, in turn, drive the Ukrainians to the negotiating table.

Meanwhile, the Ukrainians are able to hold on so far, and are organising for an offensive when Western weapon and ammunition supplies allow – thought to be late spring/early summer, when the spring rains, the rasputitsa, are over and the ground is baked hard.  Their language is of a victory before winter comes again in which case, if it holds now, the fortress of Bakhmut will have survived more than a year under siege.  Unsurprisingly, this prospect is concentrating minds in Europe’s capitals and in the Kremlin about the consequences of defeat for Russia.  In his GM article Velasquez lays out what is at stake:

If the West, led by the United States, supports a peace deal where Russia gets even a mile of land in Eastern Ukraine, it sends a message to authoritarian regimes with designs on foreign lands that they can seize land by force of arms with impunity so long as the invaded state acquiesces. If the United States supports any peace settlement featuring any territorial concession it will serve as a tacit acknowledgment that the post-World War Two international order is dead.

… with the consequence that ...

Though international peace and stability should always be the object of the security policy of the West and the United States, peace in it of itself is not a noble aspiration if it can produce a world where malign states may wage war on their weaker neighbors with impunity. The Western states, as the primary architects of the rules-based international order, are responsible for its maintenance. As a result, the West must ensure that Russia’s revisionist aspirations are defeated in Ukraine and at the negotiating table.

All that is true enough.  However, I do think it stops short of the real motivation of Washington, which is to defend not the rules-based order per se but the Western investor, central banking and corporate elites’ geo-economic model for the Globality.  In that respect, internationally recognised legal restraints on the ambitions and predations of military powers are a fundamental precondition (not, of course, through any intent on the part of the Allies after WW2, but certainly by the effect of those restraints today).  Why, because the Western elites have to escape the limitations of “the West” in order to become the economic masters of the whole globe.  So Washington - the political arm of those elites - must re-engineer all the machinery of its own global hegemony in a multipolar environment secured by every other national elite consenting to leave the conflicts of history and borders behind forever.  At least that’s the expectation.  But, as stated on several MR threads, there are two other models for the Globality in play, and both are geopolitical in kind.  One, sometimes denied, subtly hidden from the historical light, is the CCP’s.  The other is Putin’s eurasianist model.  A nightmare of only superficially economic blocs, each ruled over by a single militarily dominant force, it is the polar opposite of the Western elites’ idea and an absolute challenge to the rules-based order.  The war in Ukraine is precisely a battle, and probably the final battle, in the existential conflict of these two models.  Defeat will be terminal for one of them, and it will be the Russian one.

As Velasquez puts it:

Putin, though a liar on most issues, is correct to fear that the West wants to “inflict a strategic defeat” on Russia. The West should inflict a strategic defeat on Russia that echoes throughout the Russian decision-making apparatus, such that it changes Moscow’s strategic culture from here on out.

In other words, while Russia’s future is without doubt as a part of the international architecture, perhaps even sharing in China’s economic hegemony, in military defeat there can be no eurasianism, none of the imperial adventurism, land grabs, frozen conflicts, and satrapy of old.  It is likely that Russia will be stripped of Kaliningrad and Transnistria, and Crimea too, if the Ukrainians do not take it themselves.  Across the southern republics borders will be re-drawn.  For the first time in four and half centuries Muscovy must find sufficiency in the peoples and the immensity of its own landmass.

That being so, only one question remains for the Western elites to ponder: can they really constrain Chinese ambitions, particularly in the southern hemisphere, within a geo-economic globalist corset?  In essence, is the very idea of a multipolar world an impossibility and a blind denial of the nature of men?

The Conservative Woman, one of the last remaining Brit Disqus sites where it is possible to speak nearly honestly, published a piece this morning on the co-incidence of “the bio-security state” and fascism.  The connection was dependent on the veracity, or otherwise, of the late Umberto Eco’s undisciplined Eternal Fascism: Fourteen Ways of Looking at a Blackshirt.

There is so much nonsense written about fascism - mostly by tediously conventional minds who insist that Mussolini was a socialist so fascism was socialism - that I thought I would post a comment very generally expressing my own comprehension of the dread philosophy.  Here it is.  Naturally, it will not be understood by the tedious.

Eco was an Italian so one would have thought he might have something useful to say about fascism, but evidently not.  Perhaps it’s just not possible anymore.  So much rot is now talked about fascism, with so many people enworlded in liberalism and modernity so incapable of reaching its essence, that the thing itself is reduced to a mere hate-label.

The first and most essential point is that it was an extreme and assertive nationalism of becoming.  It sought to be historically active and nationally transformative and, therefore, it had to be Nietzschean or it was nothing.  It was not traditionalist but modernist and radically forward-looking - “Fascist Man” was newly if not freely self-confected.  He followed the party’s prescription for the rebirth of, or return to, heroism and action.  It is not, of course, traditonalist merely to recognise that liberal modernity has reduced Man to a meek and compliant instrument of the economy, or to ask if he was something more than that in the pre-modern age.  However, its modernism meant that it accepted modern capital and sought a new and inhering role for the corporation within its transformative scheme.

The second point is that it was against the massifying tendencies of the modern world, including democracy and equality.  It was not, therefore, socialist in the sense that socialism is understood within the liberal thought-world.  It did not apprehend class but nation, and not class consciousness but ethnic consciousness in an age when ethnicity was naturally and beautifully synonymous with the nation state.  Socialism in nationalism refers to the singularity and solidarity of the folk, and the natural bonds thereof.  A huge number of somewhat simple-minded folk assume for the horseshoe theory of a single universe of thought.  It’s a falsehood.  We live in an intellectual multiverse in which the politics of genetic interests never come near to the politics of the unfettered will.  They mutually seek the other’s destruction.  Within nationalist thought, fascism (with National Socialism and Judaism) stands at the imperialistic pole of the axis, in opposition to nativism.

The third point is that it was peculiarly statist.  It rejected the destining of the folk (which inhabits National Socialism and Judaism).  Instead, it encompassed everything within the vehicle of the dynamic state as the centre of a restored greatness and empire.

This is the general flavour of the thing.  If we dispense with the horseshoe, the hate-label, and so forth, do I really see it shining through modern global elitism?  No, not at all.  Most obviously, global elitism sees no precious folk but a deracinated, a-causal, coffee-coloured mass from which its own rare and perfumed subjects are uniquely different and, by that difference, may royally inflate themselves and endow themselves with all the world’s riches.  It is not a politics like fascism, or politics at all.  It is the crime of the century.